D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

For that, we turn to Tolkien's own experiences.  An officer in WWI who fought in the notoriously grim Battle of the Somme, Tolkien saw the true horrors of industrialization--turning men from country peasants and scholars (like himself) into the hoards of war, designed solely for the mission of slaughtering and being slaughtered on the Western Front.  The orcs of Tolkien represent not racist stereotypes, but a critique of the military mindset of his youth--taking something that was innocent and beautiful and twisting it so it could only serve the foul purpose of war.  

 Excellent.  Thank you very much.  This was exactly the association I was looking for.

Tolkien also published his books some 70 years ago. Society's sensibilities have changed since. I'm not saying he was a racist, only that there's a much greater awareness of these issues now. It'd be another 15 years or so after the publication of the Hobbit before the British Empire would grant its last African colonies independence. 

Quote from Kotath >> 

I would go further and ask how much of those fairy tales, were, originally completely made up and how much were stories of travelers trying to describe foreign peoples they had met? Or listeners' understandings of such descriptions? To what extent are they pure apolitical fiction and are what extent are they effectively the religious and/or political propaganda of their day?

There is a danger in dismissing them as 'merely harmless fairy tales.' This is especially true for Brothers Grimm stories. The originals were very adult and often as much horror stories as morality plays.

Is there even such a thing as apolitical fiction?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Fifinger >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

They're soulless, will-less shells

 

I’m not trying to single you out, but your terminology is something I can use to start saying the point I’m trying to make.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and yes this is relevant. For ten whole years I’ve been fighting a glitch in my brain that caused me to suffer, my family to suffer because of me, and nearly caused things I don’t want to contemplate. I don’t feel like I’m overly exaggerating when I call this disease an evil.

My experience is not unique and definitely not the worst example of people suffering from, as you say, “soulless, mindless, will-less” evils. Diseases, mental illnesses, natural disasters, take your pick. You yourself my have experienced any of these, and if so I apologize if I have presumed you haven’t in this writing.

The idea of the impersonal evil force, often embodied as monstrous beings (which I’ll concede that D&D orc, kobolds, and such have always been too humanlike to really count for) as always represented in my mind these things. So I hope you understand that my fantasies of fighting these forces and monsters are every bit as important to me as yours about standing up against the humans who also mess the world up.

 

 
Nor am I denigrating that fantasy.  D&D, at its core, is a Hero Fantasy game.  The players are Heroes (or bloody well should be, anyways), and that means there are Evils for the Heroes to combat.  Sometimes those Evils are going to be orcish raiders, kobold dragon cultists, or goblin thieves and throat-cutters, just as much as those Evils are sometimes human versions of those same things.  Sometimes those Evils are going to be aberrations, monstrosities from beyond the stars that have no place in a healthy land and sicken the world with their very presence.  Their very classification - aberration - marks them as Other, as something that doesn't belong here.  While a rare few of them - or even entire civilizations of them - might buck the trend and become mild new neighbors, many of them are so alien that even though they have the capacity to communicate with us, they rarely have reason to.

No one is arguing that Evil doesn't exist.  The arguments are against needlessly applying a broad-strokes 'Evil' brush to things that do not merit it and limiting new play groups in what they can do.  Were I DMing for your table by random cosmic happenstance, I would likely lean into aberrations as a villainous force for the campaign, commensurate with their status as a sickness in reality itself.  Star Spawn are especially good for that sort of storyline, one could make entire campaigns around seeking to purge and finally cure an incursion of Star Spawn withering away at the world around it.  Star Spawn doesn't consider itself evil, of course - but what does it care about the concerns of the fragile, temporary little meat-things thronging the land?  They don't register on its radar save as a means of spreading its influence once properly modified; it's on the Heroes of the game to stop these things from enacting their will on the world.

The only real change any of this errata of late makes - and this specific errata doesn't even really do this save for drow PCs - is a shift in emphasis.  The onus is on the DM to figure out why their Villain is Villainous.  Orcs can still be villains.  So can goblins, kobolds, bugbears, any of the historically 'Bad Guy' species.  These days, they need a reason to be villainous.  Just like any other species.  That reason doesn't necessarily have to be complex, and some tables will happily accept "because they're orcs, duh?" as the reason for Villainous orcs.  But the onus is still there, on the DM, rather than being hard-baked into the lore and thus something other tables and other DMs have to work much harder to scrape out of the game if they don't want it.

The tables for which "...they're orcs, that's why they're evil" is sufficient don't really need to do any work, no matter what the books say.  Those tables will never have an issue murdering orcs in batch lots, and if that's the game they love to play then I wish success and much orc death upon their game night.  It's just easier for everybody else if the books are neutral and provide us the option, rather than attempting to categorically sell things as Always Chaotic Evil Forever that, realistically, have not been so for many years.  Drow are an excellent example - there's been so many drow PCs, so many stories of renegade drow fighting to stick it to Lolth, and so many subversions of the 'Drow are EVIL!' thing that frankly the species' reputation as hilariously over-evil forever-villains is kinda beyond salvation anyways.  In real terms, drow have just been an exotic PC option for years now, with some tables clinging to past editions' lore and breaking the dice hands of any player who suggests playing one while other tables have never bothered restricting them and just figured ordinary, not-evil Heroic drow came from somewhere.  The errata is not "changing" anything, it's simply aligning the books with how a very significant chunk of the playerbase already plays, and what Wizards knows the trend for this species is.

If fighting impersonal, undisguised evil is important to your games?  Then do it, and take joy in it.  Some of us simply have different aspirations, and we'd like the books to work for us as much as they work for you rather than having to fight them at every third word.

 You know what? That’s completely fair.

I think I just wanted to explain that there’s at least a little more going on psychologically that just wanting to sate our bloodlust against guiltless targets (though that’s there too).

In other sub-conversations, Shepherd_Hubbard, you asked a few times why orcs are being reworked but not gnolls. The thing is that gnolls aren’t actually a race in 5e lore, it’s implied that each one came from a mutated hyena (personally I think more animals should be able to undergo the transformation).

Quote from Kotath >>

 You do not seem to mind such variations in Halflings or Elves, so why do Orcs bother you so much?

On the one hand, the variations exist for orcs too in the sense that if I had a player who really wanted to play a full-blooded Orc character rather than settling for a half-orc, I'd make it happen for them with the same caveat that they understand their character is exceptional, but if the party ends up facing down Orc opponents, it should generally be understood those Orcs are evil.  I can also see the concept of an Orc subtype that is akin to Orc's as a whole what Drow and Duergar are to Elves and Dwarves, so there is a ready option from which to draw good Orcs - I believe Faerun has Grey Orcs; and while poking about the net I came across this Yellow Orc (5e Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com). 

On the other hand however, like the 'Cops-and-Robbers' analogy from a few posts ago, at least part of this game can can be boiled down to 'Heroes-and-Monsters' as the simplest and most reduced expression of the dualist conflict theme.  I'm bothered by the executive decision to shift-click so many creature types out of the Monster Box and into the Heroes Box.  Orcs in particular, and Goblins as well, being of the classic and therefor most-favored and well known go-to monster types that fans of the genre are already familiar with and love to see.  Rather than taking it as a given that monsters are just monsters however, folks are pre-supposing their apparent 'humanity', and are exclaiming at me: "It's harmful to describe a group of PEOPLE in such a fashion".

...and I'm sitting here feeling like someone's just told me I should be vegan because it's wrong to eat people...  

Now, I get that some people see the descriptions, are reminded of RL human history, and are upset by the reminder; but aside from changing the nature of my world; which I don't want to do and don't like that WotC is doing it; I don't know how to reconcile their feelings about the subject with mine: that it is a necessity for this game to have clearly defined and distinct monsters that are not there to be sympathised with or have 'humanity' imposed upon them; they are there to be obsticales in your path while on a heroic quest -thats the function and purpose of that particualr creation.   

I have this sinking feeling that when I aquiesse on the subject of Orcs, -given what I've been told about about Gary, and also about Tolkiens origonal intentions; and some of those links to other players experiences;- and decide "alright let's shift Orcs out of the Monster Category and henceforth afford them 'humanity' with all the dignity and respect due to all people that comes with it"; than it wont be much longer before nearly ALL my monsters are people instead: that's going to change the nature of my world...  

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Kotath >>

 You do not seem to mind such variations in Halflings or Elves, so why do Orcs bother you so much?

On the one hand, the variations can exist for orcs too in the sense that if I had a player who really wanted to play a full-blooded Orc character rather than settlig for a half-orc, I'd make it happen for them with the same caveat that they understand their character is exceptional, but if the party ends up facing down Orc opponents, it should generally be understood those Orcs are evil.  I can also see the concept of an Orc subtype that is akin to Orc's as a whole what Drow and Duergar are to Elves and Dwarves, so there is a ready option from which to draw good Orcs - I believe Faerun has Grey Orcs; and while poking about the net I came across this Yellow Orc (5e Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com). 

On the other hand however, like the 'Cops-and-Robbers' analogy from a few posts ago, at least part of this game can can be boiled down to 'Heroes-and-Monsters' as the simplest and most reduced expression of the dualist conflict theme.  I'm bothered by the executive decision to shift-click so many creature types out of the Monster Box and into the Heroes Box.  Orcs in particular, and Goblins as well, being of the classic and therefor most-favored and well known go-to monster types that fans of the genre are already familiar with and love to see.  Rather than taking it as a given that monsters are just monsters however, folks are pre-supposing their apparent 'humanity', and are exclaiming at me: "It's harmful to describe a group of PEOPLE in such a fashion".

...and I'm sitting here feeling like someone's just told me I should be vegan because it's wrong to eat people...  

Now, I get that some people see the descriptions, are reminded of RL human history, and are upset by the reminder; but aside from changing the nature of my world; which I don't want to do and don't like that WotC is doing it; I don't know how to reconcile their feelings about the subject with mine: that it is a necessity for this game to have clearly defined and distinct monsters that are not there to be sympathised with or have 'humanity' imposed upon them; they are there to be obsticales in your path while on a heroic quest -thats the function and purpose of that particualr creation.   

I have this sinking feeling that when I aquiesse on the subject of Orcs, -given what I've been told about about Gary, and also about Tolkiens origonal intentions; and some of those links to other players experiences;- and decide "alright let's shift Orcs out of the Monster Category and henceforth afford them 'humanity' with all the dignity and respect due to all people that comes with it"; than it wont be much longer before nearly ALL my monsters are people instead: that's going to change the nature of my world...  

 

You keep writing that you're compelled to play differently when the rules are simply allowing "monsters" to have a range of psychologies from let's say escapist good vs. evil fantasies (which seem to be the sort of tone you strive to achieve in your game) to games where conflict is really about social-economic, political and psychological factors and violence may not be as quickly utilized to resolve said conflicts.  Your reflex sees this a as a binary, but it's a range.  

No injury has been done to you.  We're talking about a game that exists in your head, and a different game with similar mechanics in my head, and all the other games in all these other heads, and a publisher who is in the business of maximizing the utlity of their product.  Nothing is stopping you from taking a sheet of paper or whatever data renderer you prefer to use on a screen, take the Monster Manual and go super old school like Red Box D&D did with Law and Chaos lists and just write "good" and "evil" headers and split up the MM population that way.  You could even be more sophisticated and have a good evil continuum with some beings on opposite ends of the spectrum with other beings offering various middling gradations.  It's not a big lift, no where near in proportion to the incessant complaint that you might have to think about who your bad guys are.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard>>

Quote from Kotath>>

 You do not seem to mind such variations in Halflings or Elves, so why do Orcs bother you so much?

On the one hand, the variations exist for orcs too in the sense that if I had a player who really wanted to play a full-blooded Orc character rather than settlig for a half-orc, I'd make it happen for them with the same caveat that they understand their character is exceptional, but if the party ends up facing down Orc opponents, it should generally be understood those Orcs are evil.  I can also see the concept of an Orc subtype that is akin to Orc's as a whole what Drow and Duergar are to Elves and Dwarves, so there is a ready option from which to draw good Orcs - I believe Faerun has Grey Orcs; and while poking about the net I came across this Yellow Orc (5e Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com). 

Yeah, Yellow Orcs (and Red Orcs) are both from Mystara. And they're both extremely racist. They were explicitly based off of East Asians (primarily Mongolians), and are a major problem. (Red Orcs were based off of Native Americans, and were just as bad.)

If you want better examples of different styles of orcish cultures that aren't extremely racist or monotonous (like almost all of Greyhawk's and the Forgotten Realms' Orcs), look up the Orcish cultures of Eberron and Exandria.

(Eberron's Orcs still have the "primal" and "passionate" themes of most orcs, but use it for good. They saved the world once by imprisoning some eldritch abominations that were going to corrupt everything/everyone and take over the world, and they're primarily druids, which is a craft that they were taught by an Ancient Black Dragon. Exandria's Orcs were originally cursed by Gruumsh to be like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms' Orcs, but they can break free of that curse. There's a lot of different cultures that they can have, most of them just end up having the same culture as others around them, but a lot of them worship Kord or the Luxon.)

On the other hand however, like the 'Cops-and-Robbers' analogy from a few posts ago, at least part of this game can can be boiled down to 'Heroes-and-Monsters' as the simplest and most reduced expression of the dualist conflict theme.  I'm bothered by the executive decision to shift-click so many creature types out of the Monster Box and into the Heroes Box.  Orcs in particular, and Goblins as well, being of the classic and therefor most-favored and well known go-to monster types that fans of the genre are already familiar with and love to see.  Rather than taking it as a given that monsters are just monsters however, folks are pre-supposing their apparent 'humanity', and are exclaiming at me: "It's harmful to describe a group of PEOPLE in such a fashion".

...and I'm sitting here feeling like someone's just told me I should be vegan because it's wrong to eat people...  

Now, I get that some people see the descriptions, are reminded of RL human history, and are upset by the reminder; but aside from changing the nature of my world; which I don't want to do and don't like that WotC is doing it; I don't know how to reconcile their feelings about the subject with mine: that it is a necessity for this game to have clearly defined and distinct monsters that are not there to be sympathised with or have 'humanity' imposed upon them; they are there to be obsticales in your path while on a heroic quest -thats the function and purpose of that particualr creation.   

Yes, it is harmful to describe whole races of people as being "monsters" or "100% evil". Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. 

Like we've given examples for, Orcs haven't been universally evil for at least 25 years. That's older than I am. The same applies to Drow, Goblinoids, Gnolls, Giants, Yuan-Ti, and so on. This is not a new change. If you didn't complain about it back then, you probably shouldn't be complaining about it now. 

And like we've said before, you are absolutely free to keep those races as "kill on sight" monsters at your table. No one has said otherwise. If you and your players like that style of play keep doing it. The reason why WotC is making this errata and similar changes is to open up the base game to allow for a more diverse amount of playstyles. They're not doing anything for/to you, so there's no reason for you to care about this. They're doing this for people like me that don't have those races as mono-cultural monsters, and supporting both playstyles at the same time. Me having my cake doesn't take away your cake.

And, like we've said, there have been real people harmed by past depictions of these races. The Vistani were racist. Yellow and Red Orcs are racist. Drow had awful and bigoted implications (that dark skin is a curse). Hobgoblins are still based off of multiple parts of Japanese culture (they still wear Samurai Armor/Ninja Clothing in their 5e art). 

That's the reason for the changes. Not to tell you that you can't keep playing D&D how you want, but to get rid of the parts of it that were harming people, and to make it more inclusive. If it doesn't effect you and isn't hurting anyone else, you have no right to complain about it. 

I have this sinking feeling that when I aquiesse on the subject of Orcs, -given what I've been told about about Gary, and also about Tolkiens origonal intentions; and some of those links to other players experiences;- and decide "alright let's shift Orcs out of the Monster Category and henceforth afford them 'humanity' with all the dignity and respect due to all people that comes with it"; than it wont be much longer before nearly ALL my monsters are people instead: that's going to change the nature of my world...  

The thing is . . . Gary didn't care about Tolkien's original intentions for symbolism in the orcs. He didn't care. If he did, he would have used it. He would have coded Orcs as being ultra-industrial. He would have made them warlike in an attempt to spread the message that war is hell and it destroys everything. He didn't do that. He didn't respect Tolkien's depictions of Orcs. (To be honest, if there's one thing that Gary Gygax was definitely not, it was respectful towards other people's IPs. He stole from everything; the Cthulhu Mythos, Middle Earth, Jack Vacne's Dying Earth series, and so on.) 

However, if you want to have Orcs in your world be more like Tolkien's Orcs, feel free to do that. Have them be uber-industrial and militaristic. Have them pollute the world and try to turn it all into Mordor. Have them be pure embodiments of what Tolkien thought were the worst parts of humanity (war, industrialization, destruction/corruption of nature, unemphatic, etc). Have them be a corrupted type of Elf to show what can happen when the best parts of society are inverted. If you want your Orcs to be respectful to Tolkien's intent for them . . . don't use D&D Orcs. Any of them. They're not what you're looking for if you're looking for Tolkien's Orcs. 

Again, as I pointed out earlier, Tolkien himself was conflicted whether or not Orcs in Middle Earth are/should be totally irredeemable. If you want truly irredeemable bad guys, use Gygax's Orcs. If you want symbolism for the worst parts of society, while possibly being redeemable, use Tolkien's Orcs. If you want fantasy-inserts for real world marginalized peoples to illustrate how unfair the world is to those people, use the Elder Scrolls' Orcs/Orsimer or Exandria's Kryn Dynasty Orcs. 

There's a variety of options. . .  and that's a good thing. That's a really good thing. More options means that it's more likely for any one of them to click for somebody and make them get into D&D. If you want mono-cultural orcs that are only used as cannon-fodder in adventures for D&D combat . . . frankly, that's a really bad idea, both for the hobby and for story telling. Diversity is a good thing. 

Quote from Fifinger >>

 In other sub-conversations, Shepherd_Hubbard, you asked a few times why orcs are being reworked but not gnolls. The thing is that gnolls aren’t actually a race in 5e lore, it’s implied that each one came from a mutated hyena (personally I think more animals should be able to undergo the transformation).

 Hello.  Thank you for responding.  Yes, I have my team doing stuff atm from 'Garden of the Plantmaster', basically it is this valley with an abandoned city in the northern mouth, and the whole valley is filled by mutant plants and animials, including assassin vines, giant ants and asps, etc.  They only had to face 2 sapient targets so far and both were half-fiends. 

Someone, I'm not sure if it's WotC or DDB needs to check what's being placed wear though.  The logic makes sense, but Gnolls atm are definitely listed under the umbrella group (Humanoid) among others including Grimlocks and Sahuagin.  If I remember correctly, Grimlocks are actually meant to be mutated decendents from human origins and perhaps based off Morlocs from the time Machine; but Sahuagens weren't they "The Sea Devils"?  They were in Kalimar too.  

"Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. "

Yo...

If people can't separate fantasy from reality they have no business partaking of that fantasy.

Quote from Beccareth >>

"Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. "

Yo...

If people can't separate fantasy from reality they have no business partaking of that fantasy.

The whole reason that we play a Roleplaying Game is to fill a role in a fantastic world. It's kinda built into the base concept of the game that it's supposed to feel as real as possible. 

If the game's job is to make us feel like we're participating in a real adventure, it's no surprise if this would in any way influence the actions of people that play it. 

So, no, I reject this. The point of the game is to make us feel like our experiences in it are real (because they're real to our brains, even if they're not physically real). 

And if Wizards wants to separate their particular fantasy (product) from certain attitudes, that’s their business (choice.)

As I mentioned earlier as a guy who has played since he was ten (1978,) I think the direction Wizards is taking things is positive and any perceived “horrific” lore changes strike me more as outside hype than any reflection of changes I have seen so far.. 

lore is always changing.. it is ok to favor a previous iteration, but that doesn’t stop the current product moving forward with new ideas and directions…

Quote from Beccareth >>

"Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. "

Yo...

If people can't separate fantasy from reality they have no business partaking of that fantasy.

We communicate ideas through fiction. In many cases, that is the entire point of fiction. That you would dismiss this point as delusional thinking is... wow, I can only assume you are determined to miss the point.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a game or really getting into character. The problem comes when you (not you specifically) bring that fantasy (whether thoughts, concepts or actions) into reality where it can be (but doesn't necessarily have to be) harmful. 

You recognize that the character(s) you play belong to a fantasy environment that is separate from objective reality. If someone thought hurting a person IRL was no big deal because they play a cleric in DND and think they can magically heal them, that's a problem. Not with the game, but with the person.

And, no, I don't support the gross generalization that video games cause school shootings.

Quote from Beccareth >>

"Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. "

Yo...

If people can't separate fantasy from reality they have no business partaking of that fantasy.

You're way off base here, because it's not about being able to separate fantasy from reality, it's about making mental habits of thinking and relating toward people and if you want a real world example: Here's Wil Wheaton talking about how the media he consumed led to him act in a casually cruel manner towards people, something he regrets.

Furthermore, that's not even the most immediate effect of racially charged language used in a fictional context. What's most immediate is that people for whom similar language has been a source of personal harm will be re-traumatized to some degree. For example: Here's me and a moderator talking about how it's not as simple as just "hurting the feelings of fictional people."

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard>>

Quote from Kotath>>

 You do not seem to mind such variations in Halflings or Elves, so why do Orcs bother you so much?

On the one hand, the variations exist for orcs too in the sense that if I had a player who really wanted to play a full-blooded Orc character rather than settlig for a half-orc, I'd make it happen for them with the same caveat that they understand their character is exceptional, but if the party ends up facing down Orc opponents, it should generally be understood those Orcs are evil.  I can also see the concept of an Orc subtype that is akin to Orc's as a whole what Drow and Duergar are to Elves and Dwarves, so there is a ready option from which to draw good Orcs - I believe Faerun has Grey Orcs; and while poking about the net I came across this Yellow Orc (5e Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com). 

Yeah, Yellow Orcs (and Red Orcs) are both from Mystara. And they're both extremely racist. They were explicitly based off of East Asians (primarily Mongolians), and are a major problem. (Red Orcs were based off of Native Americans, and were just as bad.)

If you want better examples of different styles of orcish cultures that aren't extremely racist or monotonous (like almost all of Greyhawk's and the Forgotten Realms' Orcs), look up the Orcish cultures of Eberron and Exandria.

(Eberron's Orcs still have the "primal" and "passionate" themes of most orcs, but use it for good. They saved the world once by imprisoning some eldritch abominations that were going to corrupt everything/everyone and take over the world, and they're primarily druids, which is a craft that they were taught by an Ancient Black Dragon. Exandria's Orcs were originally cursed by Gruumsh to be like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms' Orcs, but they can break free of that curse. There's a lot of different cultures that they can have, most of them just end up having the same culture as others around them, but a lot of them worship Kord or the Luxon.)

On the other hand however, like the 'Cops-and-Robbers' analogy from a few posts ago, at least part of this game can can be boiled down to 'Heroes-and-Monsters' as the simplest and most reduced expression of the dualist conflict theme.  I'm bothered by the executive decision to shift-click so many creature types out of the Monster Box and into the Heroes Box.  Orcs in particular, and Goblins as well, being of the classic and therefor most-favored and well known go-to monster types that fans of the genre are already familiar with and love to see.  Rather than taking it as a given that monsters are just monsters however, folks are pre-supposing their apparent 'humanity', and are exclaiming at me: "It's harmful to describe a group of PEOPLE in such a fashion".

...and I'm sitting here feeling like someone's just told me I should be vegan because it's wrong to eat people...  

Now, I get that some people see the descriptions, are reminded of RL human history, and are upset by the reminder; but aside from changing the nature of my world; which I don't want to do and don't like that WotC is doing it; I don't know how to reconcile their feelings about the subject with mine: that it is a necessity for this game to have clearly defined and distinct monsters that are not there to be sympathised with or have 'humanity' imposed upon them; they are there to be obsticales in your path while on a heroic quest -thats the function and purpose of that particualr creation.   

Yes, it is harmful to describe whole races of people as being "monsters" or "100% evil". Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. 

Like we've given examples for, Orcs haven't been universally evil for at least 25 years. That's older than I am. The same applies to Drow, Goblinoids, Gnolls, Giants, Yuan-Ti, and so on. This is not a new change. If you didn't complain about it back then, you probably shouldn't be complaining about it now. 

And like we've said before, you are absolutely free to keep those races as "kill on sight" monsters at your table. No one has said otherwise. If you and your players like that style of play keep doing it. The reason why WotC is making this errata and similar changes is to open up the base game to allow for a more diverse amount of playstyles. They're not doing anything for/to you, so there's no reason for you to care about this. They're doing this for people like me that don't have those races as mono-cultural monsters, and supporting both playstyles at the same time. Me having my cake doesn't take away your cake.

And, like we've said, there have been real people harmed by past depictions of these races. The Vistani were racist. Yellow and Red Orcs are racist. Drow had awful and bigoted implications (that dark skin is a curse). Hobgoblins are still based off of multiple parts of Japanese culture (they still wear Samurai Armor/Ninja Clothing in their 5e art). 

That's the reason for the changes. Not to tell you that you can't keep playing D&D how you want, but to get rid of the parts of it that were harming people, and to make it more inclusive. If it doesn't effect you and isn't hurting anyone else, you have no right to complain about it. 

I have this sinking feeling that when I aquiesse on the subject of Orcs, -given what I've been told about about Gary, and also about Tolkiens origonal intentions; and some of those links to other players experiences;- and decide "alright let's shift Orcs out of the Monster Category and henceforth afford them 'humanity' with all the dignity and respect due to all people that comes with it"; than it wont be much longer before nearly ALL my monsters are people instead: that's going to change the nature of my world...  

The thing is . . . Gary didn't care about Tolkien's original intentions for symbolism in the orcs. He didn't care. If he did, he would have used it. He would have coded Orcs as being ultra-industrial. He would have made them warlike in an attempt to spread the message that war is hell and it destroys everything. He didn't do that. He didn't respect Tolkien's depictions of Orcs. (To be honest, if there's one thing that Gary Gygax was definitely not, it was respectful towards other people's IPs. He stole from everything; the Cthulhu Mythos, Middle Earth, Jack Vacne's Dying Earth series, and so on.) 

However, if you want to have Orcs in your world be more like Tolkien's Orcs, feel free to do that. Have them be uber-industrial and militaristic. Have them pollute the world and try to turn it all into Mordor. Have them be pure embodiments of what Tolkien thought were the worst parts of humanity (war, industrialization, destruction/corruption of nature, unemphatic, etc). Have them be a corrupted type of Elf to show what can happen when the best parts of society are inverted. If you want your Orcs to be respectful to Tolkien's intent for them . . . don't use D&D Orcs. Any of them. They're not what you're looking for it you're looking for Tolkien's Orcs. 

Again, as I pointed out earlier, Tolkien was conflicted whether or not Orcs in Middle Earth are/should be totally irredeemable. If you want truly irredeemable bad guys, use Gygax's Orcs. If you want symbolism for the worst parts of society, while possibly being redeemable, use Tolkien's Orcs. If you want fantasy-inserts for real world marginalized peoples to illustrate how unfair the world is to those people, use the Elder Scrolls' Orcs/Orsimer or Exandria's Kryn Dynasty Orcs. 

There's a variety of options. . .  and that's a good thing. That's a really good thing. More options means that it's more likely for any one of them to click for somebody and make them get into D&D. If you want mono-cultural orcs that are only used as cannon-fodder in adventures for D&D combat . . . frankly, that's a really bad idea, both for the hobby and for story telling. Diversity is a good thing. 

 nods, I've just watched my favorite youtube optimizer do a build for a psionicist using an Ebberon Orc.  It was cool build.

Edit: delete

Nods, that's what I'm thinking, maybe homebrew my Orcs to better match tolkeins. They can have a redemption path, I just need a mguffin to sever them from their dark lords influence.  

You misunderstand me. 

What I'm saying is that people who partake of fiction and use that to cause harm IRL is problematic. 

Quote from Beccareth >>

You misunderstand me. 

What I'm saying is that people who partake of fiction and use that to cause harm IRL is problematic. 

Ahh, I did misunderstand you. But now this is not even remotely what we've been talking about at all.

Quote from Beccareth >>

You misunderstand me. 

What I'm saying is that people who partake of fiction and use that to cause harm IRL is problematic. 

The relationship between "art" and "reality"'; "play" and "seriousness" just aren't as compartmentalized as your ... I guess argument or point is trying to make them.  You're simply making an assertion to give you some comfort that this discussion is about nothing and there's no need to be reflective or mindful when you're "having fun."  Conventional wisdom, most self aware people realize when someone or group of someone's are upset about something and someone responds to the upset with "it's not a big deal" and dismissing it as nothing or inconsequential or "just a game" or "just a story" or what have you .., that respondent is exhibiting precisely the callousness, literal insensitivity they're contending against.  

You can continue to flippantly dismiss it or use very simplistic understandings between the relationship between fictional representation and implications and harm (which is nothing to do with game violence and school shootings) but there are a lot of thoughts here that outweigh those light contributions.

At the end of the day entertainment is part of life, and everyone should feel comfortable in entertainment environments, and not seeing tropes and language that perpetuates notions of fun at someone else's or a group's expense.  It's not rocket science, it's pretty hard to deny the positive sentiment.

Quote from Beccareth >>

You misunderstand me. 

What I'm saying is that people who partake of fiction and use that to cause harm IRL is problematic. 

It seems that I did misunderstand you, I apologize. I do think you misunderstood the point being made in the original post you were responding to, which I believe led to confusion.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Beccareth >>

"Because if a game says that it's okay to label a whole race of people as evil and commit genocide against them, like it or not, that will influence people in the real world. "

Yo...

If people can't separate fantasy from reality they have no business partaking of that fantasy.

You're way off base here, because it's not about being able to separate fantasy from reality, it's about making mental habits of thinking and relating toward people and if you want a real world example: Here's Wil Wheaton talking about how the media he consumed led to him act in a casually cruel manner towards people, something he regrets.

Furthermore, that's not even the most immediate effect of racially charged language used in a fictional context. What's most immediate is that people for whom similar language has been a source of personal harm will be re-traumatized to some degree. For example: Here's me and a moderator talking about how it's not as simple as just "hurting the feelings of fictional people."

Ah, that thread. It's kind of a miracle that it never got locked. (Oh, and to anyone reading this, please do not necro it. If you want to read the discussion, great, but nothing that could be said hasn't already been said. We don't need to restart that flamewar.)

Quote from Beccareth >>

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a game or really getting into character. The problem comes when you (not you specifically) bring that fantasy (whether thoughts, concepts or actions) into reality where it can be (but doesn't necessarily have to be) harmful. 

You recognize that the character(s) you play belong to a fantasy environment that is separate from objective reality. If someone thought hurting a person IRL was no big deal because they play a cleric in DND and think they can magically heal them, that's a problem. Not with the game, but with the person.

And, no, I don't support the gross generalization that video games cause school shootings.

I don't support that, either. However, there is evidence that while first-person-shooter games don't cause violence, they can desensitize you to certain types of violence (kinda like how if you see a character in a TV show get shot in the shoulder with an arrow 10 times every episode for 10 seasons, it might make you start to think that that sort of injury isn't that serious. It probably won't, but it might, and on a large enough scale, like by that show or game having a huge fanbase, it could end up influencing behavior in the real world). 

I discussed this more in this post from that great thread Ophidimancer linked. 

The problem is when people try to take fantasy and treat is as reality. That's where propaganda and racism/white supremacy come from (trying to use fictional examples to influence real world behavior). As I've said before, if you want a good example of a real world attempt to paint a different race as monstrous from less than a century ago, look up the Tokio Monster from American Propaganda during WW2 or Nazi Propaganda about Jews from around the same time-period.